3 ms·

This read like gibberish to me <header[fs:xl fw:700 ta:center c:gray8/40 p:2]> name Why are we moving away from elegant legible HTML/JS/CSS stack to no nigh

by soheil 5y ago

This read like gibberish to me <header[fs:xl fw:700 ta:center c:gray8/40 p:2]> name Why are we moving away from elegant legible HTML/JS/CSS stack to no nightmares like this and React where everything is smooshed together? > bringing the elegance and concision of Ruby into the browser As a big fan of Ruby how does this tap into the elegance of Ruby? Ruby is readable, this is not. In Ruby it's very difficult to write code that makes people suffer greatly to understand, this seems to be the opposite. > It is very opinionated, so some of you might not like it As if that's the reason people won't like this. Give me a non-opinionated language and I'll show you as many people not liking it. Create a good language and people will flock.

geenat 5y ago
Thought this at first but it's just tailwind css aliases. They are interchangeable with the full name. fs = font-size fw = font-width ta = text-align c = color
- redbar0n 5y ago
  what I don't understand is why not have these abbreviations as snippets (text expansions) in the IDE, instead of language primitives? So that the primitives match what people are familiar with from before, and match the actual web standards/specifications. So that code which is reproduced and communicated online is also immediately readable for people who are not familiar with the abbreviations. To gain adoption, reducing onboarding friction is key, and judging from my impression of Imba, as well as others' comments here, I think a lot of that unnecessary friction could be reduced. On the other hand, if pros like reading very terse code, maybe an IDE plugin could be made to toggle the abbreviations.
nsonha 5y ago
> Create a good language and people will flock. What a truthfully useless statement. "Good" means having opinions about things that dont matter? Like "I don't like that css uses full words, I prefer these acronyms" Who gives a shit? Is this language designed to prevent copy pasting? You may be on to something here.
- soheil 5y ago
  No that's not what good is, I in fact love languages with concise syntax, Java is probably the worst in that department.
  - nsonha 5y ago
    yeah who doesn't, except you don't have to make a "better" language with concise syntax but mediocre in everything else (exact same semantic as javascript, we already have python for that). Make a lisp or a haskell. And this garbage css syntax is not concise, it's stupid, it's concise in the same sense that emoji is concise comparing to English.
  - hakube 5y ago
    Really? Java has the best syntax out there. It's consistent and very easy to read unlike Go, Rust or the modern languages these days
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Java has the best syntax out there De gustibus non est disputandum > It's consistent and very easy to read unlike Go, Rust or the modern languages these days Eh, its Algol-style syntax with a bunch of unique flourishes, like...lots of popular languages. Its nothing special, but its not especially consistent. If your experience is heavily in Java, then it is probably particularly consistent (with your experience) and readable to you, but it doesn't seem to have any features that make it more of either of those than most popular languages in any general, not-experience-dependent, sense.
    - nsonha 5y ago
      Go is like java minus semicolons and classes. I'd say the syntax is the almost the same but go's semantics are more simplified. I dont think there is anything special about java syntax but agree that it's simple and consistent. Java used to not have "var" and looked really dumb by having type and constructer to be the same duplicated thing, but other than that what I hate about it was mostly java beans and accessors. The problem was the idioms, not the syntax.

by soheil 5y ago

geenat 5y ago

Thought this at first but it's just tailwind css aliases. They are interchangeable with the full name. fs = font-size fw = font-width ta = text-align c = color

redbar0n 5y ago
what I don't understand is why not have these abbreviations as snippets (text expansions) in the IDE, instead of language primitives? So that the primitives match what people are familiar with from before, and match the actual web standards/specifications. So that code which is reproduced and communicated online is also immediately readable for people who are not familiar with the abbreviations. To gain adoption, reducing onboarding friction is key, and judging from my impression of Imba, as well as others' comments here, I think a lot of that unnecessary friction could be reduced. On the other hand, if pros like reading very terse code, maybe an IDE plugin could be made to toggle the abbreviations.

nsonha 5y ago

> Create a good language and people will flock. What a truthfully useless statement. "Good" means having opinions about things that dont matter? Like "I don't like that css uses full words, I prefer these acronyms" Who gives a shit? Is this language designed to prevent copy pasting? You may be on to something here.

soheil 5y ago
No that's not what good is, I in fact love languages with concise syntax, Java is probably the worst in that department.
- nsonha 5y ago
  yeah who doesn't, except you don't have to make a "better" language with concise syntax but mediocre in everything else (exact same semantic as javascript, we already have python for that). Make a lisp or a haskell. And this garbage css syntax is not concise, it's stupid, it's concise in the same sense that emoji is concise comparing to English.
- hakube 5y ago
  Really? Java has the best syntax out there. It's consistent and very easy to read unlike Go, Rust or the modern languages these days
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Java has the best syntax out there De gustibus non est disputandum > It's consistent and very easy to read unlike Go, Rust or the modern languages these days Eh, its Algol-style syntax with a bunch of unique flourishes, like...lots of popular languages. Its nothing special, but its not especially consistent. If your experience is heavily in Java, then it is probably particularly consistent (with your experience) and readable to you, but it doesn't seem to have any features that make it more of either of those than most popular languages in any general, not-experience-dependent, sense.
  - nsonha 5y ago
    Go is like java minus semicolons and classes. I'd say the syntax is the almost the same but go's semantics are more simplified. I dont think there is anything special about java syntax but agree that it's simple and consistent. Java used to not have "var" and looked really dumb by having type and constructer to be the same duplicated thing, but other than that what I hate about it was mostly java beans and accessors. The problem was the idioms, not the syntax.